Re: Physical append-only tables

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:13:30AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:43:12PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> > That said, I don't think the "maintain clustering a bit better using
> > BRIN" is a bad idea. It's just the bit about turning a table
> > append-only to deal with update-once data that I think is overreach.
>
> What if we used BRIN to find heap pages where the new row was in the
> page BRIN min/max range, and the heap page had free space.  Only if that
> fails do we put is somewhere else in the heap.
>
>
> That would certainly be useful. You'd have to figure out what to do in the case
> of multiple conflicting BRIN indexes (which you shouldn't have in the first
> place, but that won't keep people from having them), but other than that it
> would be quite good I think. 

This idea is only possible because the BRIN index is so small and easy
to scan, i.e. this wouldn't work for a btree index.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +